Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their interventions, but I must disagree with their interpretation of what needs to be done here. Let me deal with the latter intervention first.
My hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has stated that the committees are masters of their own fate. In effect, that is true. However, if chairs of committees are out of order in some of their rulings, of course, an appeal can be made to the Chair, and you are well aware of that.
I would suggest, in this particular case, the chair of the committee already confirmed that the amendment would require a royal recommendation. He stated that in the quotes that I provided in my point of order. As such, quite clearly, on page 655 of Marleau and Montpetit, which all members understand guide our committee work, guide our parliamentarians in the procedures and practices of our work here in Parliament, it states that any royal recommendation must be ruled out of order; in others, any amendment to a report in committee that requires a royal recommendation must be deemed inadmissible.
That is quite clear. That is part of the rules. That is part of the procedures and practices that we follow here in Parliament.
So, therefore, I think it would be advisable for the Chair to determine if this amendment did require a royal recommendation. Quite clearly, the chair of the committee believes it requires such a royal recommendation.
Should the Speaker of this place obviously agree with the chair of the committee, then, according to Marleau and Montpetit, it must be deemed to be inadmissible.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is suggesting that you make a ruling on the amendment and if it does require a royal recommendation, I believe you are obliged to come back and ask that it be reported back to the House without amendment.